High Court examines National Grid pension dispute

Introduction

The High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, recently delivered a judgment in the case of Andrew Phillips vs National Grid Gas PLC, addressing a complex pension dispute. The case revolved around the interpretation of pension scheme rules and the obligations of the employer in providing opinions on employee incapacity.

Background

Andrew Phillips, the claimant, was employed by National Grid Gas PLC from 1981 to 2002. He was a member of the Lattice Group Pension Scheme, which included provisions for enhanced pensions in cases of incapacity. The crux of the dispute lay in whether Phillips was dismissed due to incapacity, which would entitle him to an enhanced pension.

The pension scheme rules specified that a member dismissed due to incapacity could receive an immediate pension if the trustees determined so. The definition of 'incapacity' was a key point of contention, particularly whether it encompassed all duties or just some of the member's role.

Claimant's Dismissal and Initial Application

Phillips was injured in a workplace accident in 1999 and subsequently dismissed in 2002 on grounds of ill health. However, his application for a pension was rejected by the trustees, based on the employer's opinion that he was not dismissed due to incapacity.

Phillips argued that the employer's opinion was negligent and irrational, given the medical evidence available. Despite multiple requests, the employer consistently refused to state that his dismissal was due to incapacity.

Internal Dispute Resolution and Legal Proceedings

Phillips pursued the pension scheme's internal dispute resolution procedures, leading to a series of communications between him, the trustees, and the employer. In 2009, the trustees requested the employer to reconsider its opinion, but no new medical assessment was conducted, and the employer maintained its stance.

In 2018, Phillips's solicitors renewed the request for a revised opinion, which the employer again declined. Phillips subsequently filed a claim in 2022, alleging breaches of contractual and tortious duties by the employer.

Court's Analysis

The High Court examined whether the employer owed a continuing duty to provide a valid opinion on Phillips's incapacity. The court found it arguable that the employer had a duty to express an opinion and to form that opinion with reasonable care, particularly following the trustees' 2009 request.

However, the court rejected the notion of an open-ended continuing duty, aligning with precedents that discourage implying such duties. The court also found that the claimant's loss, if any, occurred at the time of the employer's original opinion in 2002, rather than on an ongoing basis.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed Phillips to pursue his claim regarding the employer's failure to provide a fresh opinion within a reasonable time after the 2009 request. The judgment highlights the complexities of pension scheme disputes and the importance of clear employer obligations.

Learn More

For insights into employment law, including employer obligations and dispute resolution, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.

Copyright & permissions